View Single Post
Old 01-17-2013, 12:53 PM   #101
PatNY
Zennist
PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
PatNY's Avatar
 
Posts: 928
Karma: 46026034
Join Date: Jul 2010
Device: iPod Touch, Sony PRS-350, Nook HD+ & HD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sil_liS View Post
What you can see is that the price didn't go down faster than it was already going.
You still don't know how much the latest news is contributing to any current decline. Only by removing or neutralizing that news as a factor can you begin to know.

Quote:
Which doesn't say that Apple actually ordered 19 million displays, then changed its mind. And the value between 11 to 14 million is an estimate, the analyst didn't say that he knows how many displays are being made. What is Apple supposed to dispute?
I take "Apple had expected to order 19 million displays for its iPhone 5 in January" to mean that was the original order. And that 19 million amount is consistent with Apple's past quarterly sales figures for their flagship phone. The phrase "had expected to order" is merely the reporters wording, a semantical difference. I think it's pretty clear that they had essentially ordered 19 million screens from the vendors in question.

And to me, the 11 to 14 million numbers used in this context are not an estimate but a range. There are multiple screen suppliers in the chain. It would appear they have good information on cuts in orders for at least one or two of those suppliers, but not for the other(s). Or at least some of the cuts may be tentative or in flux. If there were only one supplier I could see your point, and then that would appear to be an estimate.

Quote:
You aren't making sense to me.
The media talked about a budget iphone which they called "Mini". Apple said that it's not going to make a cheap smartphone in response to the rumors about the Mini. You quoted people talking about this hypothetical phone, but at some point you decided to talk about a different hypothetical phone, which you insist on calling by the same name. You could have at least mentioned it when you started to talk about a different phone, or refer to it by a different name.
And I really don't understand your confusion. Apple gave an interview that debunked the concept of an iPhone "Mini" as put forth by the media. (Not my concept, obviously.) And, separately, I voiced my own opinions as to what a hypothetical "Mini" should or would be like if there were to be one. I kept the term "Mini" because it basically is referring to Apple's next-step phone (or step to increase market share). The term was synonymous with it at the time the "Mini" concept was percolating out there.

Also, I was using words like "As an aside ... might ... maybe" so isn't that clear it was just speculation coming from me? "As an aside" would mean I am clearly veering off course.

By the way, the quote from the Apple exec denying a "Mini" was given merely to show that Apple will debunk things when they are false. If you look at the comment I posted it in, that's pretty clear. It had nothing to do with the Mini per se. It's just one of the first examples that came up in Google when I was looking for examples of Apple debunking false rumors.

--Pat
PatNY is offline